Cases

ACCEPTED 14-15-00284-CR FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS

OPINION Tracy Christopher, Justice This is an appeal from a conviction for unlawfully possessing more than fifty items of identifying information. Appellant raises two issues: (1) whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support his *820conviction, and (2) whether the trial court reversibly erred by admitting certain exhibits over his hearsay

*730NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in Part IV of the court’s opinion. With respect to whether G.G. stated a claim under Title IX and whether the district court abused its discretion in denying G.G’s motion for a preliminary injunction, I would affirm the ruling of the district

NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the denial of the petition for rehearing: Bodily privacy is historically one of the most basic elements of human dignity and individual freedom. And forcing a person of one biological sex to be exposed to persons of the opposite biological sex profoundly offends this dignity and freedom. Have we not universally condemned as inhumane such forced exposure throughout histor

895 F.Supp. 907 (1995) Danny Lee GRIMM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Stanley L. LANE, et al., Defendants. No. C-1-91-011. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division. March 24, 1995. *908 *909 Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein, Cincinnati, OH, for Danny Lee Grimm and Gary W. Bennett. D

865 F.Supp. 1303 (1994) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Howard S. GRIMM, Jr. and Russell Kruse, as Personal Administrator of the Estate of Howard S. Grimm, Deceased, Defendants. No. 1:94-CV-95. United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. October 26, 1994. *1304 *1305

Watts, J. It is undisputed that the ultimate question of probable cause to conduct a warrantless search is reviewed by an appellate court de novo ; i.e. , the standard of review for the issue of probable cause is de novo , or without deference. "In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court

ORDER M. CASEY RODGERS, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiffs1 own residential property in Gainesville, Florida, located near a former wood-treatment facility operated by the Defendants and their predecessors.2 They filed this putative class action lawsuit claiming that their properties are contaminated as a result of chemical activities at the f

OPINIÓN BY BENDER, P.J.E.: Appellants, Universal Medical Services, Inc. and Roderick K. Reeder, CFO, appeal from the trial court’s March 24, 2016 order granting Appellee’s, Jeffrey P. Grimm, request for attorneys’ fees. In this appeal raising an issue of first impression, we must consider the interplay between the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection La

Deemer, O. J, Teeter purchased the lot sold to Grimm-on or about the tenth day of June, 1893, and immediately went into possession and occupancy of the same. His possession continued until the sale to Grimm, in the early part of June, 1896. At the time of his purchase, Teeter had invested in stock of a building and loan association about eighty-four dollars. The consideration for the lot was nine hundred dollars. Seven hundred and

760 F.Supp. 489 (1991) NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Katherine GRIMM, Administratrix of the Estate of Gary Grimm, Martha Krigger, Executrix of the Estate of John E. Krigger, Patricia Nash, Executrix of the Estate of James Nash, Carmela Giaramita, Joseph Giaramita, Kaaren Merlo, Richard S. Merlo, Edward Leyda, Jr., Rita Leyda, and City of Pittsburgh, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Reithreilly Construction C

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1952 GAVIN GRIMM, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. GLOUCESTER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant – Appellant. ----------------------------- NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC.; INTERACT: ADVOCATES FOR INTERSEX YOUTH;

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Lubell, J.), dated February 15, 2012, which granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to reargue her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and, upon reargument, vacated a prior order of the same court dated December 12, 2011, denying the motion, and thereupon granted the motion.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Lubell, J.), dated February 15, 2012, which granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to reargue her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and, upon reargument, vacated a prior order of the same court dated December 12, 2011, denying the motion, and thereupon granted the motion.

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANDREW GRIMM, No. 18-35673 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 3:18-cv-00183- MO CITY OF PORTLAND; L. MCHENRY; F. EARLE; RETRIEVER TOWING, Defendants-Appellees.

332 S.W.3d 926 (2011) Justin Clay PERKINS and Caleb Clay Albrecht-Perkins, by His Next Friend, Justin Clay Perkins, Appellant, v. Nicole LEE and Rick Albrecht, Respondents. No. WD 72196. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. March 8, 2011. *927 Allan B. Turner, Chillicothe, MO, for appellant. Kimberly S. Brown, Came

346 N.E.2d 266 (1976) Moses CORDIAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edgar A. GRIMM and Howard S. Grimm, Defendants-Appellees. No. 3-974A161. Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District. April 28, 1976. *268 Stephen P. Rothberg, David B. Keller, Parker, Hoover, Keller & Waterman, Fort Wayne, for plaintiff-appellant. Carl J. Su

270 S.E.2d 173 (1980) STATE of West Virginia v. David Lee GRIMM. No. 14756. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. September 23, 1980. *174 Hiehle, Golden & Kiger, William E. Kiger and Richard A. Bush, Parkersburg, for appellant. Chauncey H. Browning, Jr., Atty. Gen., David P. Cleek, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, f

PER CURIAM. Reversed on authority of South Carolina Insurance Company v. Kokay, 298 So.2d 1355, (Florida Case No. 58,830, opinion filed May 21, 1981). MOORE, BERANEK and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

86 Cal.Rptr.2d 913 (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1116 Ben LEE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Lee BACA, as Sheriff, etc., Defendant and Respondent. No. B128410. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division One. July 29, 1999. Review Denied October 20, 1999. California Apartment Law Information Foundation, Trevor A. Grimm, Los Ang